People v. Osborne
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Jordan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Samuel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Reckovic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Reckovic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Olibencia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Adeyemi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Foster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. Bennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Battle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Montalbo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Delancy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division which affirmed a judgment of conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). During the cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses, it was discovered that the witness had been previously convicted of disorderly conduct as a result of an assault upon his wife. The trial prosecutor was unaware of the conviction. The court granted a brief recess and provided defense counsel with an opportunity to examine materials concerning the facts of the incident. Defendant’s attorney then pursued the matter further on cross-examination. Defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the information should have been provided to defense counsel by the prosecutor pursuant to CPL 240.45 (1) (b). We need not determine the scope of the obligation imposed by the statute on the prosecutor, however, for defendant would not be entitled to a new trial in any event. Defendant was "given a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People’s witnesses” (see, People v Cortijo, 70 *829 NY2d 868, 870). Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.